Current case law is that medical matters are the power of the state and not the federal government.
2024 Elections
231,359 Views |
3028 Replies |
Last: 21 hrs ago by SmaptyWolf
Hokie Im a pretty conservative guy and I couldn't agree more with your post and that includes your last point, I don't understand why pubs waste their time on this.hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
I've always been pro choice but with limits.
hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
What percent did Roe offer to men?
hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
Saw this am that a House seat in Alabama went red to blue in a massive blowout. The special election drew national attention, IVF was the main reason according to voters. This was a state level election. I would assume though, that the seat goes back red, in the next election, which will also be for governor.
No it wasn't. It was a privacy issue. It was a horrible decision that kicked it down the road. Even Ruth bader ginsberg said that it was a horrible interpretation and that it would be overturned.
I'm actually pro choice, but also just anti bad laws, including ones that have been on the books for too long. Roe had serious flaws and needed to go,SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
Originator of the Tony Adams Scale
well, you and I agree on something... The Roe decision was defiantly a needle mover and this will be too...Wufskins said:Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
If SCOTUS restricts or outright bans the abortion pill it will be as big an issue as the economy and the border.
I do think the roe ruling was proper; however, it may not have been popular. For me, this is definitely a state issue, along with the abortion pill ruling.
Funny enough, I don't hear a lot of complaining that abortions have been limited. I only hear complaining about the ruling, in general... So, from my perspective, its working the way it is supposed to be...
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
caryking said:well, you and I agree on something... The Roe decision was defiantly a needle mover and this will be too...Wufskins said:Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
If SCOTUS restricts or outright bans the abortion pill it will be as big an issue as the economy and the border.
I do think the roe ruling was proper; however, it may not have been popular. For me, this is definitely a state issue, along with the abortion pill ruling.
Funny enough, I don't hear a lot of complaining that abortions have been limited. I only hear complaining about the ruling, in general... So, from my perspective, its working the way it is supposed to be...
Plenty of complaints. From healthcare providers to women seeking medical attention like the woman in Texas that was denied an abortion even tho she may have died had she not gotten one. Her story was highlighted at the SOTU address as she was invited by the President. Look up Kate Cox. We have fewer abortion clinics in states like Texas where the laws are intentionally written so vague that doctors are scared to provide abortions. Not everyone has the money and resources to drive several states away to get an abortion. What Dobbs has created is for states to take on extreme measures to keep women from getting the healthcare they need.
RBG definitely believed that abortion should be a constitutional right. She just thought the reasoning in her own case that she wanted to bring on the subject was more sound, one that focused on the Equal Protection Clause instead.Ncsufist said:
No it wasn't. It was a privacy issue. It was a horrible decision that kicked it down the road. Even Ruth bader ginsberg said that it was a horrible interpretation and that it would be overturned.
Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
The court in the 70's ruled incorrectly. The way I know is, we as a society, accepted the ruling, as law. Courts don't create law; rather, they rule on the case law.
I wish the courts would have sent this back to the legislature to create a law; instead, it became pseudo law. It is what is is! Perhaps more states will pass legislation.
Also, trying to compare abortion to guns is misguided, smapty,.. guns were recognized as a right that the people are protected from the government. That's not the same as abortion, no matter which amendment you call out…
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
And that doesn't refute what I posted
So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
Smapty, I like this review of the 14th amendment…. Thoughts?
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2021/11/17/understanding-the-constitution-the-14th-amendment-part-i/
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
Can you post on PP?
BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
You think about this topic a LOT. Have you considered getting on the birth control pill, just in case?
How do you know I am not posting there now? You don't.Wufskins said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
Can you post on PP?
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
It's a legitimate political question. The fact you refuse to state your position is telling in and of itself.SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
You think about this topic a LOT. Have you considered getting on the birth control pill, just in case?
You are a card toting MARXIST and you know it. You are just ashamed to admit it. So typical...
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Which begs the question, Democrats knew Republicans didn't agree with Roe. RBG had said the law used for Roe was shaky. The Democrats had majorities several times with a Dem President so why didn't they codify Roe at some point.caryking said:Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
The court in the 70's ruled incorrectly. The way I know is, we as a society, accepted the ruling, as law. Courts don't create law; rather, they rule on the case law.
I wish the courts would have sent this back to the legislature to create a law; instead, it became pseudo law. It is what is is! Perhaps more states will pass legislation.
Also, trying to compare abortion to guns is misguided, smapty,.. guns were recognized as a right that the people are protected from the government. That's not the same as abortion, no matter which amendment you call out…
If I'm a Democrat I'm more upset that they did nothing to protect abortion rights than I am with Republicans whose stated goals all along were to overturn Roe. The Dems failed to protect their constituency and that's on them, not on the Republicans who followed what their constituencies wanted.
BBW12OG said:How do you know I am not posting there now? You don't.Wufskins said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
Can you post on PP?
I don't believe men can have a baby. Now answer this question. What do you post under at PP (or used to)?
barelypure said:Which begs the question, Democrats knew Republicans didn't agree with Roe. RBG had said the law used for Roe was shaky. The Democrats had majorities several times with a Dem President so why didn't they codify Roe at some point.caryking said:Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
The court in the 70's ruled incorrectly. The way I know is, we as a society, accepted the ruling, as law. Courts don't create law; rather, they rule on the case law.
I wish the courts would have sent this back to the legislature to create a law; instead, it became pseudo law. It is what is is! Perhaps more states will pass legislation.
Also, trying to compare abortion to guns is misguided, smapty,.. guns were recognized as a right that the people are protected from the government. That's not the same as abortion, no matter which amendment you call out…
If I'm a Democrat I'm more upset that they did nothing to protect abortion rights than I am with Republicans whose stated goals all along were to overturn Roe. The Dems failed to protect their constituency and that's on them, not on the Republicans who followed what their constituencies wanted.
When did they have a chance to get 60 votes in the Senate?
News out of Pennsylvania - 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail-in ballots without dates or with unqualified dates cannot be counted in PA elections. Omitting the date or incorrectly dating the return envelope renders the ballot invalid.
barelypure said:Which begs the question, Democrats knew Republicans didn't agree with Roe. RBG had said the law used for Roe was shaky. The Democrats had majorities several times with a Dem President so why didn't they codify Roe at some point.caryking said:Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
The court in the 70's ruled incorrectly. The way I know is, we as a society, accepted the ruling, as law. Courts don't create law; rather, they rule on the case law.
I wish the courts would have sent this back to the legislature to create a law; instead, it became pseudo law. It is what is is! Perhaps more states will pass legislation.
Also, trying to compare abortion to guns is misguided, smapty,.. guns were recognized as a right that the people are protected from the government. That's not the same as abortion, no matter which amendment you call out…
If I'm a Democrat I'm more upset that they did nothing to protect abortion rights than I am with Republicans whose stated goals all along were to overturn Roe. The Dems failed to protect their constituency and that's on them, not on the Republicans who followed what their constituencies wanted.
It's always easier to blame the otherside.. that goes for Republicans as well…
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
Wufskins said:barelypure said:Which begs the question, Democrats knew Republicans didn't agree with Roe. RBG had said the law used for Roe was shaky. The Democrats had majorities several times with a Dem President so why didn't they codify Roe at some point.caryking said:Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
The court in the 70's ruled incorrectly. The way I know is, we as a society, accepted the ruling, as law. Courts don't create law; rather, they rule on the case law.
I wish the courts would have sent this back to the legislature to create a law; instead, it became pseudo law. It is what is is! Perhaps more states will pass legislation.
Also, trying to compare abortion to guns is misguided, smapty,.. guns were recognized as a right that the people are protected from the government. That's not the same as abortion, no matter which amendment you call out…
If I'm a Democrat I'm more upset that they did nothing to protect abortion rights than I am with Republicans whose stated goals all along were to overturn Roe. The Dems failed to protect their constituency and that's on them, not on the Republicans who followed what their constituencies wanted.
When did they have a chance to get 60 votes in the Senate?
That hasn't stopped Dems from passing legislation without a supermajority. Remember Obamacare?
On the illegal or criminal immigrants…
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
“they built the country, the reason our economy is growing”
Joe Biden
caryking said:Wufskins said:barelypure said:Which begs the question, Democrats knew Republicans didn't agree with Roe. RBG had said the law used for Roe was shaky. The Democrats had majorities several times with a Dem President so why didn't they codify Roe at some point.caryking said:Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
The court in the 70's ruled incorrectly. The way I know is, we as a society, accepted the ruling, as law. Courts don't create law; rather, they rule on the case law.
I wish the courts would have sent this back to the legislature to create a law; instead, it became pseudo law. It is what is is! Perhaps more states will pass legislation.
Also, trying to compare abortion to guns is misguided, smapty,.. guns were recognized as a right that the people are protected from the government. That's not the same as abortion, no matter which amendment you call out…
If I'm a Democrat I'm more upset that they did nothing to protect abortion rights than I am with Republicans whose stated goals all along were to overturn Roe. The Dems failed to protect their constituency and that's on them, not on the Republicans who followed what their constituencies wanted.
When did they have a chance to get 60 votes in the Senate?
That hasn't stopped Dems from passing legislation without a supermajority. Remember Obamacare?
Dems have gotten around the filibuster in the recent past using "reconciliation", which can only be used on things that plausibly affect the budget. Roe didn't exactly qualify.
Don't worry, though, with any luck the filibuster will be going the way of the dodo soon.
BBW12OG said:It's a legitimate political question. The fact you refuse to state your position is telling in and of itself.SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
You think about this topic a LOT. Have you considered getting on the birth control pill, just in case?
You are a card toting MARXIST and you know it. You are just ashamed to admit it. So typical...
It's only a "legitimate political question" if you live in an increasingly bizarre right wing fantasy world. Has anyone in the real world ever suggested that a man can have a baby? How is this even a topic, let alone one that some of you clearly obsess about?
Has anyone else seen this ad on YouTube that now runs on every single video where creepy Joe starts out by saying "Donald Trump is obsessed with revenge"?
Well Joe Biden is obsessed with trying to destroy the Second Amendment and sniffing and groping young girls.
Which is worse?
Well Joe Biden is obsessed with trying to destroy the Second Amendment and sniffing and groping young girls.
Which is worse?
Originally "BBW12" from the onset of the board. 20+ years ago.... not exactly sure when.Wufskins said:BBW12OG said:How do you know I am not posting there now? You don't.Wufskins said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
Can you post on PP?
I don't believe men can have a baby. Now answer this question. What do you post under at PP (or used to)?
As far as today goes.... wouldn't you and RCS like to know!!!
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
LOL... you are joking right?SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:It's a legitimate political question. The fact you refuse to state your position is telling in and of itself.SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
You think about this topic a LOT. Have you considered getting on the birth control pill, just in case?
You are a card toting MARXIST and you know it. You are just ashamed to admit it. So typical...
It's only a "legitimate political question" if you live in an increasingly bizarre right wing fantasy world. Has anyone in the real world ever suggested that a man can have a baby? How is this even a topic, let alone one that some of you clearly obsess about?
Your party has been using the phrase "birthing person" for over a year now.
They also say that men can have babies, periods and lactate. They also say women can have balls and shafts.
Play dumb all you want. You deflected again. You have been exposed for what you are comrade. Enjoy being a MARXIST... don't run from it.
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Question, is using your DOJ in an effort to bankrupt your opposition, keep them in court and off the campaign trail, making scurrilous accusations not an example of extracting revenge. The Dems always accuse others of what they are doing is true in this caseGuerrillaPack said:
Has anyone else seen this ad on YouTube that now run on every single video where creepy Joe starts out by saying "Donald Trump is obsessed with revenge"?
Well Joe Biden is obsessed with trying to destroy the Second Amendment and sniffing and groping young girls.
Which his worse?
BBW12OG said:LOL... you are joking right?SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:It's a legitimate political question. The fact you refuse to state your position is telling in and of itself.SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
You think about this topic a LOT. Have you considered getting on the birth control pill, just in case?
You are a card toting MARXIST and you know it. You are just ashamed to admit it. So typical...
It's only a "legitimate political question" if you live in an increasingly bizarre right wing fantasy world. Has anyone in the real world ever suggested that a man can have a baby? How is this even a topic, let alone one that some of you clearly obsess about?
Your party has been using the phrase "birthing person" for over a year now.
They also say that men can have babies, periods and lactate. They also say women can have balls and shafts.
Play dumb all you want. You deflected again. You have been exposed for what you are comrade. Enjoy being a MARXIST... don't run from it.
Ooohh, you're talking about people who are physiologically women, but psychologically see themselves as a man for whatever reason, a.k.a. transgender people. Honestly, who cares what they want to be called when they're pregnant? Does that really affect your life? Jesus you guys need a hobby.
If America can tolerate 40% of the country worshipping a used car salesman and insisting the Earth is flat, we can handle a relative handful of people who struggle with their gender identity.
Yeah playing make believe is one thing. When you start believing it is real then you need help.SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:LOL... you are joking right?SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:It's a legitimate political question. The fact you refuse to state your position is telling in and of itself.SmaptyWolf said:BBW12OG said:So deadskins.... can a man have a baby?Wufskins said:barelypure said:Except neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Barrett said it was settled law. The all said it was precedent. Precedents are merely guides and can be changed. Settled means it has stood the test and should hold up to challenges. Those on the left are all hung up that Roe was settled. They forgot to tell SCOTUS tho.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:uh, the states actually can kick the amendments if they wanted to, it's part of the constitution. Roe was bad law that also happened to give you something you think is a right. It's not an amendment though.SmaptyWolf said:hokiewolf said:Roe was bad law, bad laws need to be removed from our system, not reinforced.SmaptyWolf said:Civilized said:hokiewolf said:To me, this is where I do not like politics. Roe was a terrible law, it kicked the can down the road. Leagally, it was correct to overturn the law. Now instead of doing the thing they're supposed to do, like produce legislation, debate it and compromise a sound solution that is bi-partisan, they just use it as another issue to raise money from.Civilized said:Wufskins said:GuerrillaPack said:
Seeing the senile communist kid-sniffer's commercials everywhere now -- on television and YouTube non-stop. No Trump commercials at all.
The commie's main pitch is to "fight" the climate change hoax and to fight for the "right" to murder unborn children. Wow, winning issues there Demoncrats....how does paying more taxes and higher prices for fuel for the global warming hoax make my life better? How does women murdering their unborn children make my life better?
Guess you guys think you can rig the election again with millions of absentee ballots that are 100% for Biden magically arriving at 3:00am in every battleground state?
Keep thinking women's abortion rights doesn't move the needle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/03/26/democrats-republicans-abortion-ivf-alabama-election/
It very clearly had a huge electoral impact in 2022.
The recency of the Dobbs decision relative to the date of the 2022 elections impacted too, in ways that will be hard to quantify and extrapolate to 2024.
It won't go from mattering a lot to not at all, but I am curious to see how much of a motivator or galvanizing issue it is for the left over two years after Dobbs.
Oh sure, it should always have been legislated.
And the legal community seemed to agree it was a law that should/would be overturned when the SC took it up.
Most Americans want sensible abortion law, not outright bans or effective bans and not red herring full-term abortions. They want something that makes sense that's in between those two extremes. That sentiment was clear before Dobbs. Pubs knew this.
They had the opportunity though to come to the table with Dems to craft and pass good, common-sense legislation that would supersede the legally dubious Roe law.
They chose instead to overturn first and ask legislative questions later (or not at all) and they should bear the electoral burden of that poor decision/sequencing.
Was there anything about Roe that wasn't already a sensible compromise? It seemed to work pretty well for decades. Sure it should have been legislated, but there was nothing stopping congress for all of those decades and they chose not to.
Roe was only under attack exactly because the anti-abortion movement wants an outright ban, full stop, and pushing it to the states gave them an opening to do that. So now conservatives are the dogs who finally caught the car.
What they're now discovering the hard way is that women care about their own bodily autonomy as much as anyone cares about any constitutional right, and the idea of kicking their rights to the states to decide is bullsh**.
Your last paragraph I especially disagree with. No one is forcing someone to live in the 14 states that banned abortion. Just like a woman has the free will to choose to not use contraception that would prevent having to have an abortion, they have the free will to pick up and move to the other 36 states of their choosing where some form of abortion is legal.
Abortion should be decided at the state level because what is good for California and New York is not necessarily what should be good for the entire country. Treating the United States like it is one big blob of like minded people is the reason why we get bad laws like Roe in the first place.
My biggest frustration with the left side argument is that there isn't free choice to begin with. Use contraception or abstain from sex, or don't and risk getting pregnant. That's autonomy! What you want is 0% accountability, and that was what Roe offered to woman.
Now, my biggest frustration with the right side at the moment is doing stupid **** like trying to ban IVF or contraception based on religious arguments. That don't fly with me either.
So you'd be fine with kicking the 2nd Amendment and every other constitutional right to the states to decide? Or just the ones that don't affect you personally?
Don't get me wrong, I think Republicans should definitely turn "if you don't like it, you're "free" to move to another state" and "it's your fault for getting pregnant, suck it up!" into their bumper stickers. I'd love a permanent Dem majority.
Sorry, let me clarify. Roe was decided based on the "due process clause" of the 14th Amendment. So Roe was no less a "constitutional right" than any random gun law leveraging the 2nd Amendment.
The current court just decided to ignore all of that and instead use a bunch of questionable ideological reasoning to justify overturning long settled law. You're fine with that outcome because it happened to give you something you think is a right. I think you guys will end up regretting the dangerous precedent that you've now set with this court, never mind the political realities of getting what you wished for in this case. Ugly stuff.
You're right BP, but the term to use is super precedent. Neither of the three Trump appointees called Roe super precedent.
You think about this topic a LOT. Have you considered getting on the birth control pill, just in case?
You are a card toting MARXIST and you know it. You are just ashamed to admit it. So typical...
It's only a "legitimate political question" if you live in an increasingly bizarre right wing fantasy world. Has anyone in the real world ever suggested that a man can have a baby? How is this even a topic, let alone one that some of you clearly obsess about?
Your party has been using the phrase "birthing person" for over a year now.
They also say that men can have babies, periods and lactate. They also say women can have balls and shafts.
Play dumb all you want. You deflected again. You have been exposed for what you are comrade. Enjoy being a MARXIST... don't run from it.
Ooohh, you're talking about people who are physiologically women, but psychologically see themselves as a man for whatever reason, a.k.a. transgender people. Honestly, who cares what they want to be called when they're pregnant? Does that really affect your life? Jesus you guys need a hobby.
If America can tolerate 40% of the country worshipping a used car salesman and insisting the Earth is flat, we can handle a relative handful of people who struggle with their gender identity.
Again... you have shown who you are. Embrace it.
While you are at it... why don't you find me a rooster that can lay an egg.
And for the record I see my self "psychologically" as a multi-billionaire, 4 time All American in three sports, inventor of Google and Amazon.
That doesn't make it true now does it?
Big Bad Wolf. OG...2002
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
- Thomas Jefferson
Featured Stories
See All
IPS IN 5: Sunday Morning Thoughts On The Wake Disaster
by James Henderson
6:38
11h ago
2.1k
Dave Doeren: "They Made More Plays Than We Did"
by Rob McLamb
8:33
12h ago
687
LOCKER ROOM REPORT: NC State Players
by James Henderson
OUR FINAL TAKE: NC State vs. Wake Forest
by James Henderson
BOX SCORE: Wake Forest 34, NC State 30
by James Henderson